2012 Election thread

[Osprey 199]

Romney will lose handily, id be willing to make a sig/avatar bet on it

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

I don't know if I'd ever want to make a sig bet about election results this far out from an election.

 

John McCain was beating Obama by 3 points in the polls as late as September 12, 2008, and he lost the election by over 7 points. Kerry was beating Bush in 2004 in some polling centers' final polls before the election, and he lost by 2.5 points.

 

We're always a second economic crisis from Obama losing by 5 points, and on the flip-side we're an improving employment picture through the summer away from Romney losing by 10+.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

So, uh, you know that article I posted a week ago about how Obama was going to try use some of his giant cash advantage to apply pressure on weaker Red states, with Arizona being the main example?

 

Um, well this happened: http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/media/news-events/poll-obama-vs.-romney-a-toss-up-in-arizona

 

With the 2012 presidential election just over six months away, the latest statewide Merrill/Morrison Institute poll found that Arizonans are evenly divided on whom they will support in November.According to the poll of 488 registered voters, 42 percent said they would vote for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, while 40 percent said they would support President Barack Obama and 18 percent were undecided. Because the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent, if the election were held today the contest for Arizona’s 11 electoral votes would be a “toss up.”

 

The poll found that the electorate is divided along party lines: 80 percent of Republicans said they would vote for Romney, 78 percent of Democrats for Obama. Although the sample of political independents is small (n=166), independents appear to be breaking slightly more for Obama (38 percent) than Romney (28 percent). However, the independent vote is still up for grabs because 34 percent of independents said they are undecided.

 

Now, obviously this is just one poll and we're months from the election, and it's pretty well accepted that the general populace doesn't pay attention to the polls until the conventions, but a poll like this is only going to encourage Obama to put more money into the state, and if it really IS that close(or even within 5 or 6 points of that, frankly) then Romney is going to HAVE to put money into Arizona to keep it secure, which he really isn't likely to have the money to be able to afford to do.

 

I know I've said it before, but man: this country really stacks the deck against those who would challenge incumbents.

[magicflow 0]

I don't think Romney really has a chance, which is fine by me as I think Obama will help education/ not hurt it as bad. As a student personal interest vote haha.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

This is a worthwhile read about bull**** political news stories:

 

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-to-spot-b.s.-political-story-in-under-10-seconds/

[Ibn Battuta 127]

This is a worthwhile read about bull**** political news stories:

 

http://www.cracked.c...der-10-seconds/

 

nice, I'm actually guilty of using the blast and blow phrases many times when I did Model UN and Arab League.

[Ibn Battuta 127]

where do you guys go to get your information about candidates from? not the "news" that jackie is referring to.

 

I usually read WSJ and economist if they have an election piece.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

where do you guys go to get your information about candidates from? not the "news" that jackie is referring to.

 

I usually read WSJ and economist if they have an election piece.

 

If we're talking about presidential candidates, I'm of the opinion that a good source of information really doesn't exist. You can find lots of stuff about their stated positions, but those don't seem to mean much once they get into office. There's no way to tell which of those stated positions will end up getting compromised and which will be upheld. And sometimes those compromises are made for legitimate reasons. It's not necessarily dishonesty, it's just how our political system works.

 

But in general, I try to never assign trust to any particular source. There are some sources that tend to raise more skepticism in me than others, but I make an effort to remain skeptical of any information I come across, especially in the realm of politics.

[Ibn Battuta 127]

just to update this thread, Romney is now being attacked for supposedly bullying a kid in HS. Pretty stupid IMO to attack him for something he may have done as a juvenile.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

It's the same as when people attacked Obama in '08 over various loose associations he'd had 20 years earlier. If you expect every candidate to run for president their entire lives, you'll have no valid candidates.

 

I don't support Mitt Romney for several reasons; the fact that he may have been a dick in high school is never going to be any of them.

[DanA_TBDP 12]

I don't think Romney really has a chance, which is fine by me as I think Obama will help education/ not hurt it as bad. As a student personal interest vote haha.

As a fellow student, just know, the more money the government puts into education, the more expensive it gets.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Another batch of polls, another batch of all over the place results:

 

Rasmussen: Romney +8

Gallup: Obama +1

Reuters: Obama +7

 

I know a lot of complaints have been levied at Rasmussen due to the, seemingly, overabundance of Republicans in his voter models, but I'd be curious to see how Reuters' model stacks up.

 

Oh, and Obama also now endorses same sex marriages, but continues to believe it's a state's rights issue.